Uthred

Cool, I'll check that out

That helps to clarify it. I think I was a bit overwhelmed with all the sourcebooks and was mistaken thinking that one "had" to go through them as opposed to them being additional resources for different tiers of play. The default being that there isn't much "social climbing" is fine.

So fresh new knights start out as Vassal Knight's with a shiny manor. But where do they go from there? Obviously feudal society is rigidly hierarchal with limited social mobility. But what can a vassal knight realistically aim for? Certainly for starting knights catching the attention of the king in battle and getting bounced up the ladder to Banneret or Baron. Is there a more reliable way to accrue land or rank? Can someone like Roderick raise a vassal to banneret status? Or is there no real planned "career trajectory" and its largely dictated by the campaign and GM whim?

So I'm wondering do you start each new combat round with your spell or weapon prepared or do you have to pay the usual cost? e.g. in Round 1 I cast Demoralize, if I want to cast Demoralize again in Round 2 do I need to pay +5 SR to do so? Similarly if I end Round 1 with my missile weapon out of ammo do I need to reload it in Round 2 or is reloading subsumed into the "free" prepare?

I can't see any entries for natural weapons in the skill chapter. Is it Manipulation like all other weapons?

I think it's fine. Hit points are an abstraction as is and I don't mind moving away from verisimilitude (or "realism" if you prefer) in order to make combat against large foes less of a slog against a bag of hit points. In some ways if this was a design goal I think they should have went the whole hog and divorced "hit points" from "meat points" entirely, adding in a bonus for POW is a nod towards that but a more clean division would have avoided any mental dissonance that not having SIZ play a larger factor creates. Quicker and more lethal combat suits what I want out of the system so I've been running it as is. It should only scale within the bounds its designed for, a "good" system is one that does what its designed to well, in this case (and the case for the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying games) that is to model roughly human scale characters fighting against a variety of different sized foes. The system is not designed to emulate big monster versus big monster battles. So while its certainly true that the system fails to make that interesting it also never set out to do so so the complaint feels orthogonal at best to the systems stated aims. Of course if your own aims are similarly orthogonal I can see how that might be a problem. Also I'm not sure comparing how large herbivores fight is particularly useful, most monsters are carnivores and it seems as valid to suggest a monster sized carnivore will fight like a bigger version of itself than like a whale or an elephant, this holds even truer for sapient creatures.

Well if you're using the generate personal history portion of the character creation process it will briefly cover or mention all the recent major events. If you use it in tandem with HQV you should be able to get general cultural info along with recent major world events.

So it would be fair to say that the statement of intent is descriptive rather than prescriptive?

If you can whatever you want when it comes to Strike Rank resolution than why bother with the intent phase at all? RQG is not a "rules light" game. I've no problem with broadly defined rules in games like FATE but for a crunchier game like Runequest I'd appreciate more clarity. My "fun" is not hampered by clearly understanding the rules. I enjoy Mythras for example because of its mechanical complexity but I'm entirely clear on how everything works in it. I dont think having an explicit rule would hurt much and I also don't think the +5 SR rule is vague, it very explicitly mentions what it covers even going to far as to specify exactly how you get rid of the weapon you're currently holding. Thanks for clarifying that there is no textual support for changing ones intent. As I said above I'll allow it as it makes sense.

I was wondering that as well.

Firstly, she. Secondly, I came here seeking clarity on unclearly written rules, thats it. I'm not looking for a "fight" and it's sad that you think this constitutes one. Your contributions to this thread are mis-reading the initial question, posting a confusing re-hash of the rules and then consistently failing to read the posts responding to you and (unsurprisingly) failing to engage with any of the points you're responding to. One that people keep making and failing to acknowledge. It is beyond tedious to have to constantly re-state the same point because people keep making the "mistake" of not reading. It's not an "attack" to point out a mistake, that's how discussions work. It's also, as we seem obsessed with conduct, incredibly rude. I responded to you several times with length quotes on the topic at hand and you clearly didn't read them. Don't you consider that rude? How helpful to the discussion or the site is it for people to engage in discussion on a topic when they wont even read what they're responding to? "Nothing but combative"? That's frankly nonsense. Other than you and "Bill" my exchanges in the topic have been as neutral as anyone else's. We were in fact discussing the topic at hand until I, and I cant say how much I regret it, brought up the special damage example and we disappeared down this rabbit hole. I do think calling out putting someone on an ignore list is a bit cringey. Dont get me wrong, now that I realise the forum has the functionality I'll be using it. But I wont be announcing every addition. I suppose it is interesting that you again didnt actually respond to the argument being made, instead simply casting aspersions and having your little press conference moment.

Ah, I think people need to stop defending their mistakes by hiding behind the shield of "opinions". It is not an "opinion" that both sections are mechanically identical. It's an objective fact. One which people responding to it have either not read or defended with a string on increasingly bizarre justifications. I have absolutely no problem with people not caring about it. It's a minor editing issue. That's obviously fine, different things bother different people. I do have a problem with people pretending that the sections arent the same and then when being called out on their errors deciding not to address that mistake but to hide behind swipes at peoples posting style. I have no problems with differing opinions but it has to be a question of opinion for one to have differing opinions on it and to mercilessly belabor the point, the two sections being mechanically identical is not an opinion.

There are no differences. Why do people keep talking as if the two sections aren't identical? This isn't a subtle nuance, this isnt a question of different learning styles, both are purely textual sections describing exactly the same effect, you are literally learning the same thing in each section. If one section was written while the other was pictorial it and they had different titles then yes it would be an opinion on learning styles. But again this has literally nothing to do with learning styles. You know, this is ridiculous, I wasted so much time on this minor point which I brought up in passing to illustrate how the mechanics of the game arent always clear. I'm done discussing this tangent now.

Honestly I think you're doing a bang-up job of dragging yourself through the muck, why would I bother piling on? But no, keep telling me how in a game world where reality is based on magical runes your "objective facts" justify your sexism. The rules of the game reflect the physical reality of the setting. The only purpose of the "realism" you want to inject is to make it less appealing and less mechanically sound to play a female combatant (a role the book goes out of its way to say is common). But sure, your concern is "realism".

The "potential consequences" of doubling damage rolled is identical there is no "subtle nuance" there it's simply an editing oversight. The potential consequences i.e. having a weapon stuck in you for impale and maybe being knocked out for slashing are covered in their own discrete sub-sections. It's laughable to suggest that you don't like "nuance" if you have a problem with sloppy writing. Nuance should arise from the mechanics not from trying to decipher unclear rules text. Mythras is more complex and has much more mechanical nuance, it also has much clearer writing, its a question of clarity not nuance. Shiningbrow already covered this. But no, they work identically I mean the post you quoted has direct quotes from the book with page references that says exactly that. Why would you need to recall it? You twice responded to posts with direct quotes from the book that shows they function identically. As we're pulling people up on behaviour it's pretty rude to engage in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother to read what you're responding to. Admittedly it does make the extended back and forth make more sense in light of that. Sorry about contributing to that. In an effort to get back on track. To summarise magic in melee combat i.e. while engaged: While "Engaged" in Melee combat you can: -> Cast a non-attack spell and make a melee attack -> Cast any number of spells you can afford the strike ranks for but only one of them can be an attack spell -> Cast Sorcery or Spirit magic on the same turn but Rune magic is exclusive

I'm genuinely confused as to what you're talking about. I thought I had been painfully clear but apparently not. I will try and make myself clear one more time and then I'm dropping it because either I am communicating this terribly or you're being deliberately obtuse. If you have the book handy maybe opening it and following along would help. But before I begin, yes I am saying that Impaling and Slashing damage (before any additional damage the impale might trigger) do the same damage. Are the physically the same? No, of course not, but who cares because thats not what this is about. Which makes it all the more bizarre that you keep bringing it up. Open your Runequest Glorantha to page 203. You will see a section titled "Special Damage" under that you will see a heading "Impaling Damage". Under that there are two sub-headings "Double Damage" and "Weapon stuck in target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads "An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells." So if a 1D8+1 Impaling weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Double Damage" "Mechanical Effect A" Turn to page 204. You will see a heading "Slashing Damage". Under that there are two sub-headings "Roll Damage Twice" and "Incapacitating the Target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads "The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location." So if a 1D8+1 Slashing weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Roll Damage Twice" "Mechanical Effect B" Do you understand that Mechanical Effect A is identical to Mechanical Effect B? That is the complaint. Identical mechanical effects should be labelled and written consistently. If you have a mechanical effect you dont redefine it with a different name every time its introduced. Its sloppy writing and editing. Thats the extent of the complaint.

No, according to the rules they do exactly the same amount of damage when it comes to damage doubling. The extra damage impaling does is covered in a different subheading "Weapon stuck in target". The damage doubling effect for Impaling and Slashing damage, for the third time, FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no justification beyond sloppy editing for describing the same mechanical effect with different text and subheadings.

Do you have a page/rules reference for that by any chance? It seems logical that this is how it works but there doesnt seem to be anything about changing your action after you state your intent in Phase 1. The +5 for changing to a different weapon seems to be simply the cost of doing so rather than permission to change intent. I'm going to run it that you can change actions but an actual textual reference would be great.

That doesnt explain why the two subheadings have different names for literally exactly the same mechanical effect. Impaling damage, other than the additional impale effect doesnt do any more damage than slashing damage. RQG pg. 203 "Double Damage An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells." RQG pg. 204 "Roll Damage Twice The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location." It's literally the same mechanical effect but has a different subheading and is written in a slightly different way, its emblematic of the kind of sloppy writing the combat chapter is full off.

The irony of complaining about people wilfully ignoring "reality" while wilfully ignoring that Gloranthan reality from physics on up explicitly functions differently is, well too sad to be truly amusing, but its something all right and thats not even getting into "Realism justifies my sexism!"

Strike ranks explicitly aren't discrete second in the combat round. Also isn't the "bizarre reason" simply a result of the combat systems abstraction? From what I can see you cant do anything to react to your leg being hacked off, whether its rune magic or anything else, you state your intent in Phase 1 and then the Strike Ranks play out in Phase 3. There seems to be no option for "changing your mind" so the reason that Rune magic always takes place in SR1 is because it happens as soon as you think of it. Admittedly that interpretation may be wrong. The combat chapter is not very clearly written e.g. the fumble example on pg. 206 directly contradicting the text before it, the fact Impaling damage has "Double Damage" and Slashing damage has "Roll Damage twice" despite them being mechanically identical, and so on. It could do with another editing pass and a large worked example.

During the intent phase wouldnt you have to state you're using Rune magic thus barring you from using any other type of magic even if in strike rank terms you used Sorcery and then Rune magic?

I'm sure it is and when I get to pg. 315 I'll feel suitably chagrined. But I've only read to the end of the combat section so far. So multiple spells per turn while engaged in melee are fine once they dont involve Rune magic?

If point four is correct then surely the answer is No? The question was about using a spell and a melee attack (which you can only do when engaged) in the same round

1. Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round? The text on pg. 194 specifically says you can but the text on pg. 195 about using either melee or magic attack contradicts this. 2. Can you use different types of magic e.g. Rune and Sorcery in the same melee round (assuming you have the strike ranks for it)?